Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Solatar on February 28, 2008, 10:48:27 pm
-
Tech room descriptions lead us to believe that large bombs were launched at planets to bombard them by Terrans and Vasudans (Harbinger) while the Shivans used what appears to be a beam cannon (it might be assumed the Terrans and Vasudans use them to the same end by Freespace 2). Launching ordinance at a planet could conceivably be done in a few ways: Firepower (bombs and other weapons) launched from capital ships in orbit; bombs dropped by high atmosphere bombers; bombers actually launching bombs from high orbit; or some combination.
How would the beginnings of a planetary attack proceed in Freespace - keeping in mind the differences that might be incurred by the discovery of beam technology? For this discussion, it would be prudent to focus on how firepower would be directed at the planet and possibly how troops would then be landed, but not to delve into how ground combat would occur.
I'm tempted to say ships like cruisers and Orions hovering in low orbit launching bombs and blobs. It looks like utter devestation, but a good missile defense system could probably destroy a Harbinger while it was still in the very upper atmosphere, minimizing its damage. Blob turrets, if aimed at cities or military bases, could actually be effective if they have the range to attack a planet. Laser cannons from large capital ships would most likely do severe damage to an area over time.
-
Where in the tech descriptions does it say Terrans and Vasudans launch bombs at planets? If they did, I would say the would be launched from warships, most of the bombers look unfit for atmospheric flight, though bombers could launch bombs from orbit. Blobs could probably be devastating, though they seem to slow and weak (they are not actual lasers) to reach a planet's surface from orbit. Both the Argo and the Elysium seem way to big an clunky to land on a planet, unless they and some uber-powerful bottom-facing thrusters, or can magically defy gravity.
-
They said Harbingers were reserved for planetary bombardments and the Ursa was the first bomber built to use them. This means Harbinger bombs were used only by large ships such as cruisers, destroyers, etc. This of course, brings up another question. If the capital ships we saw on FS1 could fire Harbingers, why didn't they use them against the Shivans, particularly the Shivan Lucifer? This might mean the GTA/PVN had special ships or bombers reserved for planetary bombardments.
-
The issue with blobs is that they seem to lack any real range. I'm starting to doubt that an Orion could park itself in space with a small fleet, launch some fighters, and cripple a planet. Perhaps they have some sort of "artillery" type ship that launches a different kind of weapon.
Or maybe they just load up an Orion's large cannons with a different gun (internally, of course) and launch a ballistic artillery shell. Might not want to use them in space because they won't cause a lot of damage without oxygen (or other gases) to effectively explode with, but if you design them to specifically explode in atmospheres they could be very devestating.
-
Or maybe we're reading way too far into the gameplay and the blob turrets have a much greater range, you just don't see it in game
-
There are 2 ways to achieve this off hand that i know.
1)Set up a Planet and the attacking ship
Place a SJD Sathanas "inbetween" the ship and planet and quite some distance from the ship - The little triangle must be invincible and radar invisible.
Have the ship fire on the SJD Sath., preferably with beams and after a set amount of time use SEXPs to cause an explosion effect at the beams maximimum range.
2) Use the Surface plate model from TBP to create the planet's surface
Set up the targets on the surface and the attacking ship high above the surface
Have the ship hold position and attack
-
I don't think they're talking about FREDing it.
-
There are 2 ways to achieve this off hand that i know.
1)Set up a Planet and the attacking ship
Place a SJD Sathanas "inbetween" the ship and planet and quite some distance from the ship - The little triangle must be invincible and radar invisible.
Have the ship fire on the SJD Sath., preferably with beams and after a set amount of time use SEXPs to cause an explosion effect at the beams maximimum range.
2) Use the Surface plate model from TBP to create the planet's surface
Set up the targets on the surface and the attacking ship high above the surface
Have the ship hold position and attack
How would that prove anything within canon?
-
Erm way to Fred the Lucifer laying the Smack-down on Vasuda Prime?
opps should read thread properly first.
Id say that they bombard the tagets with Harbingers.
-
Hey, don't take the in-game ranges as canon. Have you checked the range on beam weaponry (including the Lucifer weaponry from both FS1 and FS2)?
There's no way Lucifer could have preform orbital bombardment. 6km isn't enough (and the .ani show it in high orbit)
-
But then again- 1) we never see the Lucifer firing it's side beam, and 2) we never see an object out of range of the Lucifer's guns, so the 6km range might just be an arbitrary gameplay limit, not what Volition intended.
Also note that beam weapons continue into space forever if they miss a target. The in-game range limit may just have to do with accuracy, not actual maximum range. You also have to consider that the Lucifer may use a different sort of power train for planetary bombardment. For example, the Colossus can apparently overcharge its beams to get an LRBGreen. The beam we see hitting Vasuda Prime is much more massive than anything we see in-game, anyway. It's large enough to swallow a city.
-
Hey, don't take the in-game ranges as canon. Have you checked the range on beam weaponry (including the Lucifer weaponry from both FS1 and FS2)?
There's no way Lucifer could have preform orbital bombardment. 6km isn't enough (and the .ani show it in high orbit)
Actually the Shivan Super Laser has 30km range, but that's still not enough, even for low orbital bombardment.
And if a beam were large enough to swallow a city, even a small one, wouldn't it be wider than the Lucifer itself? (think - Lucifer = 3km, its beam cannot even come close to 0.5km in width)
-
The ingame Limit is 30,000km, after that the beam just stops.
-
But then again- 1) we never see the Lucifer firing it's side beam, and 2) we never see an object out of range of the Lucifer's guns, so the 6km range might just be an arbitrary gameplay limit, not what Volition intended.
The FS2 intro cutscene was created by Interplay, not Volition, and even displays incorrect firing points for the Manticore. The Lucifer has no broadside beams.
-
Orbital bombardments can be found in original mission concepts by me ;)
-
but we remember that animation after Vasuda Prime got bombarded by Lucifer. It clearly shows a beam hitting the planet (and as it does, a few ships are flying away). But there's no real 'scale'. You can't tell how big the beam is, but it's clearly the Lucifer's, as it says the Lucifer bombarded the planet... also the beam is the same color :D. But the Lucifer is pretty damn big... a small city i'd say, so one of its beams hitting the planet would be pretty devastating, plus it "bombarded" the planet, meaning it didn't just fire one beam at it... it kept firing.
Another thing to keep in mind. Beams in the vacuum of space are one thing, but perhaps atmospheric conditions on a planet would affect it? :) now take that and run with it... ;)
-
Orbital bombardments can be found in original mission concepts by me ;)
Original? Hah!
-
Orbital bombardments can be found in original mission concepts by me ;)
There is no such thing like an original mission concept.
EDIT: Damn you, Snail.
-
They're original...I don't remember other attempts... :wtf:
-
They're original...I don't remember other attempts... :wtf:
Shrouding the Light: Origins. In a mission, you can see Lucy bombing Vasuda Prime.
-
They're original...I don't remember other attempts... :wtf:
Just because there weren't any publicized attempts at orbital bombardments doesn't mean yours is the only one. :doubt:
Also, Dysko's reply.
-
I can also add Sol: A History to that list.
-
I didn't mean that kind of bombardment...
Just because there weren't any publicized attempts at orbital bombardments doesn't mean yours is the only one. :doubt:
Also, Dysko's reply.
Planetary bombardments aren't all the same!
I can also add Sol: A History to that list.
Well, no. That Majesty destroyer doesn't carry out a realistic planetary bombardment. You know that's a bombardment thanks to the messages...in terms of FREDding, the mission with that modified Orion is a normal bombing run.
-
Point is, you claim to have created something new, when you most certainly haven't.
I'll give you that your missions are frightening in the amount of detail, size, scope, etc., but your claims can get a bit annoying sometimes...
-
Reminds me of two pictures:
a) 'Destruction of the Sathanas' "Woot!"
b) 'Ironic long range bombardment of Earth'
-
Point is, you claim to have created something new, when you most certainly haven't.
I'll give you that your missions are frightening in the amount of detail, size, scope, etc., but your claims can get a bit annoying sometimes...
That's a bit offensive...
You act like someone who checked the computers I use to FRED without finding something that gets close to my "claims". That's stupid.
-
Maybe this is thinking far too deep into it, but would blob turrets make it to the ground? Being superheated gas or whatnot, would they be cohesive enough to do any damage once they hit the ground or would the men on the base just have to take their jackets off?
-
I don't think blob turrets are ok for bombardments, they're energy...I consider solid weapons like torpedoes the best solution. As someone stated before, the Harbinger would have a catastrophical effect with a blast radius(atmosphere needed for this one).
-
That's a bit offensive...
Then sorry, it was not meant to be.
-
Are you sure? :doubt:
-
It could be that the GTA envisioned an end to the war by launching Harbingers from say an Orion onto the surface of Vasuda Prime. However, bombs can be tracked and easily shot down, although this in itself is a disadvantage, as we've seen that if a Harbinger is shot, the shockwave and no doubt radiation fall out will be massive. Additionally, I doubt very much an Orion will be able to get that close to the planet without being shot down by Vasudan forces
So therefore, I believe that the plan was to force their way into Vasuda Prime system eliminating any space based defence forces, and then to bombard Vausuda from above. However, considering we never got that far before the cease-fire was signed, the bombs were put into storage until time dictated that they were needed.
-
In that case Orion destroyers should have been modified to carry torpedoes...
-
Torpedos/artillery type shells DO seem to be the ideal solution, however Terran ships appear to simply have no capacity for them. The Fenris fusion mortar is a potent weapon against other cruisers (in FS1) but the Orion had no missile launchers.
I do support the theory that the harbingers might have been in storage for use on Vasuda Prime itself because if every planetary bombardment consisted of multiple harbinger strikes, war would be completely catastrophic. Launching loads of huge nukes at a planet merely to force a surrender wouldn't do much, because it's leave the planet pretty much useless to whoever won.
I theorize that although weapons like harbingers were designed for planetary attacks, they were sort of the "coup de grace" or the "end all" weapon. When the day was to come when Vasuda would have to be made to surrender, nukes would work. But for lesser situations smaller munitions would be in order.
I'm not sure how much damage a fusion mortar could cause, but with advanced targetting technology several cruisers parked in lower orbit aiming at specific targets could cause some damage. Military fortifications would be able to withstand the assault, but above ground facilities might be able to be destroyed. Combine these with other subsidiary methods of attack, like possible pointing an Orion's main guns on a target area, and you have a solution that reduces the enemy forces while not destroying the planet.
-
Not everything in the game can be easily shot down. Try shooting more than one bomb and you'll be sure to have a chance at punching through. This is demonstrated many times even in the gameplay. Otherwise since everything can be easily blocked and shot down then everyone would be completely invulnerable. The line of thinking where everything can easily be shot down, blocked, or have no effect sucks complete ass. A harbinger in space is a super nuke that doesn't do much in a vacuum, but get it into an atmosphere and you'll have something a lot more devastating than todays real nukes. Also the fact that blob turrets can destroy other vessels from a prolonged fight, i'm sure blob turrets blobbing the surface of a planet would cause some nice devastation.
I propose that launching some harbingers and a prolonged blobbing of the planets surface would suffice for massive devastation. Another thing about the lucifer firing its side planet devastater beams. The one thing that is not explained in detail in this game is how good beams are at keeping there coherence at extreme distances. Pretty much what i'm saying is perhaps the lucy's beam is a lot more focussed coming from the ship itself and a lot less focussed on the planets surface (like it spread out a good deal coming from the high orbital source). Another thing is that perhaps the reason that the destroyers and cruisers and so on why we don't see them with the holes to push harbingers out of is because of the fact that none of the missions in fs have nothing to do with planetary bombardment (you never go on any gta planetary bombardment missions). The only stuff that has to do with planetary bombardment is the harbinger and the lucifer, and since you never fly on any planetary bombarding missions and the gameplay is completely centered around in space ship to ship combat only, you don't need to put in any ships with harbinger launchers. Just figure that the cap ships have them with your imagination since the game says that harbingers are for planetary bombardment and not for ship to ship combat (until the ursa got made) and that this game isn't perfect.
-
But would the GTA and the PVN really want to devestate EVERY planet that becomes a war objective? if I want planet X for a staging around, and I want to capture it from the Vasudans, why would I nuke the planet? When this darned war is over in a few years, I'd like to mine for resources (or even during the war mine for metals and other stuff I'll need in the war).
In that scenario I think blobs turrets would win with, like I said, some fusion mortars or maybe a bit heavier ordinance. But nukes everytime?
-
Who said nukes every time?
-
You seemed to imply that harbingers were standard protocol for orbital bombardment, if I've misread you, I apologize.
-
But would the GTA and the PVN really want to devestate EVERY planet that becomes a war objective?
Quite possibly they would. Remember it's been going on for 14 years and nobody's been able to gain advantage enough to hold anything they didn't apparently start with for long. In that case the switch to a scorched earth tactic against enemy territory you know you can't hold is fairly rational. They've been at this a long time and they're getting frustrated, too.
There is absolutely no indictation blobs are suitable for bombarding planetary surfaces, and their short ingame range and their stated nature as plasma makes it unlikely they can reach the ground through atmosphere with any real impact.
-
Who said that destroyers bomb planets?
Perhaps those Fusion Mortars on Fenrises and Levis were originally meant for bombing planets. They do enough damage to devastate any planet(if the indications from the FS1 tech room are to be believed) and they fire every second. They would be ideal, IMO.
EDIT: Alright Wanderer, have it your way.
-
:wtf: 'Correct side'... Ships are in space you know
Bottom line is that all weapon ranges and especially capital ship firepower have been extremely heavily attenuated to create classical space opera style combat.
-
Are you sure? :doubt:
Yeah. I'm sure.
In that case Orion destroyers should have been modified to carry torpedoes...
Instead of blobs.
-
Just as a curiosity... why is everybody thinking that FS warheads are nukes?
The MX-50 table entry says that the warhead has a yield of 16,5 kilotons. That doesn't mean it's a nuclear warhead! It simply means that the warhead has the same destructive power of 16500 tons of TNT. Who knows, maybe at the time of FS there will be smaller explosives with higher destructive power than today (mini-MOAB? :lol: ).
This could be applied to every other warhead in FS.
-
Bottom line is that all weapon ranges and especially capital ship firepower have been extremely heavily attenuated to create classical space opera style combat.
I'm sorry, but your argument violates the canon, plz hang up and try again. :P
-
Just as a curiosity... why is everybody thinking that FS warheads are nukes?
Cause they are. :p
Fusion bomb surrounded by 3 salted fission bombs - propulsion unit is a half-size version of a regulation GTA fighter thruster (Class II) - given the weight of the payloads, the missile is slow despite the power of the thruster - as the Harbinger is exceptionally large, GTA bombers are limited to carrying 6 of these weapons at any given time - the resultant shock wave from this weapon is potentially deadly, due to the size of the payloads (5000 Mt in total) - use near allied installations or allied ship groupings is strongly discouraged by the GTA - most effective when used in preemptive defensive strike against non-military installations.
Actually the GTA/GTVA used several different methods including nuclear, antimatter and meson weapons.
-
FIVE THOUSAND ****ING MEGATONS?!
-
Just as a curiosity... why is everybody thinking that FS warheads are nukes?
Cause they are. :p
Oh... forgot about the Harby :nervous:
-
FIVE THOUSAND ****ING MEGATONS?!
Does ~1% damage to the Lucifer.
-
It is simply impossible to create 5000 Megatons of explosive power via fusion AND stuff it in a container the size of a Harbinger.
-
When talking about planetary bombardments torpedoes are usually overestimated because of the blast radius.
-
It is simply impossible to create 5000 Megatons of explosive power via fusion AND stuff it in a container the size of a Harbinger.
Agreed.
-
A "few" decades ago people said that humans would have never been able to fly... :rolleyes:
-
Decades? Almost a century. Though FS1 IS 300 years in the future (327 to be exact).
-
That has nothing to do with technology. You can't just magically reduce the amount of space needed for the fusion fuel.
-
It depends what you're fusing. :rolleyes:
-
bingo
-
That has nothing to do with technology. You can't just magically reduce the amount of space needed for the fusion fuel.
I don't see the problem, giving the lifetime...
-
It depends what you're fusing. :rolleyes:
You would need elements which aproximately produce 100 times more energy than the Deuterium we are using in our nukes.
Small Hint: There are none. :doubt:
-
In the made up world of FreeSpace anything is possible :nod: heres a clue- it's a game :yes:
-
Ohh Karajorma, there art thou?
-
The it's a game argument bites arse i know. Who's to say that the gta didn't discover a super element, i thought our nukes used uranium and beryllium? That's moot anyway. 300 years is a long time to refine tools of war, 100 years ago it took 3 months by boat to get to africa.
-
The it's a game argument bites arse i know. Who's to say that the gta didn't discover a super element, i thought our nukes used uranium and beryllium? That's moot anyway. 300 years is a long time to refine tools of war, 100 years ago it took 3 months by boat to get to africa.
:yes:
Impossible Is NothingTM
-
The problem is that there aren't a lot of new elements left to discover and most of them decay in a few milliseconds anyway. Even if there is a super heavy element which could produce more energy it could only undergo nuclear fission not fusion.
(I am aware of the ''it's a game'' problematic, I just want to prevent people from starting pointlessly heated debates about completely unrealistic data which lead nowhere, and maybe to a locked thread in the end. But feel free to continue the discusion, just don't die over those contradictions)
-
I think the 5000 megatons was probably just technobabble. What I got from the tech description was that it was a really, really, really badass bomb.
-
Which is the most important thing considering it is a game.
-
Maybe they develop a new process then :) who's to know. I just had a thought. Perhaps the 5000 is the total for the six bombs each craft was limited to, which makes me wonder why the gta didn't just hardwire a support ship to remote detonate with a full payload of say, 30. Regarding troop delivery, i reckon the gta may have some repulsor style anti g system to allow argo's to enter atmosphere. :)
-
Just noticed this bit...
most effective when used in preemptive defensive strike against non-military installations.
So this weapon is most effective when used against civilians before the war... On the other hand... what weapon wouldn't be...
-
Passive resistance :)
-
When talking about planetary bombardments torpedoes are usually overestimated because of the blast radius.
These bombs are actually usually underestimated because of their blast radius. Get a harbinger in atmosphere and you'll have one hell of a bigger explosion.
-
Not to mention it's a salted fission warhead, which produces MORE radiation if I'm not mistaken.
They're huge AND designed to create more fallout. I'd hate to have one explode on MY planet.
-
Not to mention it's a salted fission warhead, which produces MORE radiation if I'm not mistaken.
They're huge AND designed to create more fallout. I'd hate to have one explode on MY planet.
I would hate for one of those bombs in my Ursa to just out of nowhere go *Boom*.
-
When talking about planetary bombardments torpedoes are usually overestimated because of the blast radius.
These bombs are actually usually underestimated because of their blast radius. Get a harbinger in atmosphere and you'll have one hell of a bigger explosion.
This kind of topics ends with comments like yours. An important thing: atmospheres aren't all the same...is it going to influence the effectiveness of a planetary bombardment?
-
Well, since this discussion is under the assumption of attacking earth like atmospheres since that's where we're all getting our atmospheric basing from. Feel super duper proud that you just pulled an idea out of your nether regions because you didn't want to think about how a nuke detonates in atmosphere.
1. a nuke going off in space is just an unleashing of energy, in space you'd probably want focussed charge nukes to be able to do any damage to the heavily armored capships in fs.
2. an atmosphere provides a medium for some nasty shockwaves. Different atmospheres will have different results in the severity of the shockwave. I'm guessing the severity of the shockwave would be judged by atmospheric density and pressure (based on how thick the atmosphere in question is and whether or not that'll be a bigger or smaller shockwave). One thing is sure of all nukes going off in atmosphere. Atmospheres will provide that medium for a shockwave where a vacuum wont provide a medium for such a nasty shockwave.
Thanks for the comment. I guess with average sounding comments like mine and everyone elses that in this thread that you decided to quote mine. Thx for giving me the honor of having the last word and calling me right because by you i "ends this" kind of topics. That's a crowning achievement, but i think you just don't like something. Could you not handle me quoting you in the first place and saying something to the contrary for furthering the topic?
When talking about planetary bombardments torpedoes are usually overestimated because of the blast radius.
These bombs are actually usually underestimated because of their blast radius. Get a harbinger in atmosphere and you'll have one hell of a bigger explosion.
This kind of topics ends with comments like yours. An important thing: atmospheres aren't all the same...is it going to influence the effectiveness of a planetary bombardment?
Somehow this got into panty bunching in some random part of the world where there's evidently panties....and pink.
-
I don't get the reason behind this particular kind of flaming...
I said that this topic's not the first discussing the subject. The other topics end with the classic "blast radius + atmosphere = annihilation" thing. Where's the problem with that?!?
"Earth like"? Earth's atmosphere changed in the past and habitable planets/satellites aren't al supposed to be Earth-like. We're discussing planetary bombardments in general...the list of targets include planets/satellites that have been colonized, not Terra-Vasuda Prime(home planets). Try to imagine something like the Moon with a very poor atmosphere...I don't think the Harbinger would be that lethal there.
-
What Ess Ninety-Nine is saying is that you're trying to "end the topic" in every discussion. Like "You're wrong, I'm right, period," which I must admit, annoys the living **** outta me.
-
I don't want to end the topic. I want to see more theories and opinions other than "blast radius + atmosphere = annihilation". What I posted above is enough to discuss other aspects of the subject.
-
"Earth like"? Earth's atmosphere changed in the past and habitable planets/satellites aren't al supposed to be Earth-like. We're discussing planetary bombardments in general...the list of targets include planets/satellites that have been colonized, not Terra-Vasuda Prime(home planets). Try to imagine something like the Moon with a very poor atmosphere...I don't think the Harbinger would be that lethal there.
I'll just give my list again here from my previous post since i was imagining an explosion in varying atmospheric and no atmospheric conditions
1. a nuke going off in space is just an unleashing of energy, in space you'd probably want focussed charge nukes to be able to do any damage to the heavily armored capships in fs.
2. an atmosphere provides a medium for some nasty shockwaves. Different atmospheres will have different results in the severity of the shockwave. I'm guessing the severity of the shockwave would be judged by atmospheric density and pressure (based on how thick the atmosphere in question is and whether or not that'll be a bigger or smaller shockwave). One thing is sure of all nukes going off in atmosphere. Atmospheres will provide that medium for a shockwave where a vacuum wont provide a medium for such a nasty shockwave.
OK, with that being said a second time, plus the fact that not anyone in this topic was getting into the specifics of atmospheres either in this whole thread. So when anyone talks about atmosphere in here, they're probably talking about something like vasuda primes atmosphere which was very much like earths (considering that humans could survive in their atmosphere which happens in the fs1 ref bible). How do i figure in this topic that everyone was talking about an atmosphere similar to earths? Everyone in the topic was basing off of information known about our own local atmosphere which i assume was happening since no one got into specifics. The only person who got into specifics about this was you mobius, and you don't read minds. It's not a bad turn in subject at all. In fact it's quite a necessary one when talking about orbital bombardment. But the fact remains, no matter what kind of atmosphere there is, a nuke going off inside of it will have a lot bigger shockwave than the a nuke going off in space. And since you didn't want to be wrong you brought in the "well well what about other kinds of atmosphere?".
This led you to the moon. LOL, i mean talk about an obvious ploy here...desperation, perspiration. The moon is a horrible thing to compare with a real atmosphere. The moons atmosphere is so negligible it might as well be just a nuke going off in a vacuum. Now if you want to say like a nuke going off on mars as opposed to earth, then that wouldn't be a ploy, that would actually further the argument. As such, Mars will probably result in a smaller shockwave because mars's atmosphere is a lot thinner.
-
Not to mention if there are any sort of elements supporting combustion in an atmosphere, you'll get a fireball in addition to the shockwave.
-
Or EMP...
-
It all makes me wonder how much other planets are populated. We know Vasuda Prime and Earth are obviously filled with their respective species, but how populated are planets in other systems? It makes me wonder if people outside their home systems live primarily on planets or on installations.
If a planet has very little population and settlement, but it is known that there's a military base on it, it would stand to good reason to launch a couple huge freaking nukes. Make sure you got it.
-
Weeell... According to GTA doctrine (the harbinger tech entry thing) they would probably just bomb the civilians on the planets where there are no military installations (to maximize weapons effectiveness...).
Actually using nukes when invading a planet or using really hard hitting chemical or biological weapons is generally a very bad idea if your plan was to conquer the planet. That is you probably would like to conquer something else than radioactive and/or toxic wasteland - given that enemies will probably respond in kind that is the most likely ultimate result. Of course if you plan on genocide then it doesn't matter as you probably won't even want to land to the planet in the first place. Tactical (ie. small ones, not things like Harbinger) nukes are different matter though.
-
I honestly just think that the developers threw in a really big number without really thinking about what it meant.
It just doesn't make sense.
Although the part about attacking nonmilitary installations may refer to the use of the Ursa bound version of the Harbinger, in which case attacking orbital ship yards and large installations before an attack is a really good idea.
-
I honestly just think that the developers threw in a really big number without really thinking about what it meant.
It just doesn't make sense.
Although the part about attacking nonmilitary installations may refer to the use of the Ursa bound version of the Harbinger, in which case attacking orbital ship yards and large installations before an attack is a really good idea.
QFT :yes: